PARIS MOU 2011 ANNUAL REPORT ON PORT STATE CONTROL circular dated 18.07.2012

The Paris MoU has published its 2011 Annual report on port state control.

In July 9, 2012, the Paris MoU has published its annual report on port state control for 2011. During
last year 19,058 inspections have been recorded which is less than the year before (24,058 inspections
in 2010). However, due to the introduction of the new inspection regime the number of individual ships
inspected has been increased from 14,762 in 2010 to 15,268 in 2011. Additionally, during last year 20
ships were banned, 13 more compared with 2010 results. As per Paris MoU press release the multiple
detentions was the most common reason for banning in 2011.
In terms of flags performance, Faroe Islands, Vanuatu, Latvia and Iran moved from the “Grey List” to
the “White List” with Germany leading the list. Moreover, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines moved from
the “Black List” to the “Grey List”. Kazakhstan and India moved from the “White List” to the “Grey List”
and Dominica and Honduras moved from the “Grey List” to the “Black List”.






9 July 2012

2011 ANNUAL REPORT ON PORT STATE CONTROL“On course for safer shipping”Considered to be the worldwide index for flag performance, the Paris MoU “White, Grey and Black Lists” indicate further improvements towards quality shipping.Last year Panama was congratulated for its efforts to move up to the White List. This year Faroe Islands, Vanuatu, Latvia and Iran moved from the “Grey List” to the “White List”. A very successful achievement and an example for other flags that, through determined actions and political courage, changes can be made. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines moved from the “Black List” to the Grey List. Kazakhstan and India moved from the “White List” to the “Grey List”. Dominica and Honduras moved from the “Grey List” to the “Black List”.Brian Hogan, chairman of the Committee stated: “This year was one of the most significant and busy years for the Paris MoU in recent times. The start of the year saw the introduction of the New Inspection Regime, NIR, which has transformed and modernised the port state control regime in our region. I wish to thank the port State control officers and administrators in each of our member Authorities as they are the people who ensure the success of our endeavours and they are central to the Paris MoU in achieving our goal of safer shipping.”There are now 43 flags on the “White List”, 1 more compared with last year. Some flags have moved position with Germany leading the list, followed by Sweden and Denmark. DPR Korea has disappeared as leader of the “Black List” since not enough inspections have taken place over the last 3 years. Libya is now on the top of the “Black List”, followed by Bolivia and Togo.The introduction of the New Inspection Regime this year will show an impact on the 2011 figures. Already the number of inspections has dropped from 24,058 in 2010to 19,058 in 2011, while the number of individual ships inspected had increased from 14,762 in 2010 to 15,268 in 2011. This will also have a consequence for some trends over previous years. Until last year the detention percentage has been decreasing gradually. The trend has not continued and in 2011 the percentage increased to 3.6%. This can be explained since the focus of targeting is on ships with a higher priority. The number of detentions has decreased significantly from 790 in 2010 to 688 in 2011.In 2011 a total of 20 ships were banned. 13 more compared with last year. Multiple detentions was the most common reason for banning in 2011.Richard Schiferli, Secretary General stated: “It should be understood that substandard ships will no longer be tolerated in the region and with the new refusal of access measures in place, repeated offenders will be “banned” from our ports. This has happened to a substantial number of ships already, some of which have been recycled in the mean time. Others chose to find new areas to operate, endangering the lives of the seafarers on board and constituting a risk for the environment.”With 1,327 inspections and 152 detentions the ships flying a “black listed flag“ score a detention rate of 11.45%. For ships flying a “grey listed flag” the detention rate is 7.11% (1,181 inspections, 84 detentions) and ships flying a “white listed flag” 2.65% (16,829 inspections and 446 detentions).




Recognized Organizations are delegated by flag States and carry out most of the statutory surveys on behalf of flags. For this very reason it is important to monitor their performance. The best performing RO over the period 2009-2011 is the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) followed by Det Norske Veritas (DNV) and China Classification Society. The worst performing RO is Phoenix Register of Shipping (PHRS), located in Piraeus, in Greece.








whi t e l i s t gr e y l i s t b l ack l i s t
PORT STATE
CONTROL
On course for safer shipping
2 0 1 1
annual report

whi t e l i s t gr e y l i s t b l ack l i s t
3 1
3 3
3 5
2 0 1 1
Content s
Exe cut ive summar y 6
Par is MoU deve lopme n t s 8
Fac t s and f igure s 2011 18
St at is t i cal Anne xe s annual repor t 2011 23
Explanator y not e – Whi t e , Grey and Black l is t s 5 4
Par is MoU Se c re t ar iat
colophon, add re ss and s t af f 56
A n n u a l r e p o r t
4
1.executive summary
Brian Hogan
S t a t e m e n t b y P a r i s M o U c h a i r m a n This year was one of the most significant and busy years for the Paris MoU in recent times. The start of the year
saw the introduction of the New Inspection Regime (NIR) which has transformed and modernised the port
state control regime in our region. The introduction of the NIR was the culmination of many years hard work by
very many people. All of those who took part in this work, including the various task forces and groups which
developed the NIR, are to be complimented on their achievement. Alongside the NIR we also introduced our
new information system called “THETIS”. Again I would like to thank all of those involved with this. More details
of the implementation of the NIR and “THETIS” are contained in this annual report together with the updated
statistical tables which reflect the implementation of the NIR.
While the implementation of the NIR and “THETIS” were the dominating tasks for the Paris MoU during
the year, other important activities continued. These included the 44th Session of the Paris MoU Port State
Control Committee (PSCC) which was held in Naples, Italy in May 2011. The Committee reviewed the on-going
implementation of the NIR and took many important decisions including the decision to grant co-operative
membership status to Montenegro. Additionally the Paris MoU held a Concentrated Inspection Campaign (CIC)
in the autumn of 2011 on Structural Safety and Load Lines jointly with the Tokyo MoU and details of this CIC are
contained in this report.
During 2011 the Paris MoU Secretariat continued to serve its members very well. The Secretariat arranged
training courses and seminars for port State control officers and supported the effective achievement of the
MoU work programme. I wish to thank the members of the MoU Advisory Board (MAB) who continued to serve
the Paris MoU throughout the year. I would also like to thank the European Commission and the European
Maritime Safety Agency, EMSA, for their substantial contribution to the development of the NIR and “THETIS”,
this support and co-operation with the Paris MoU ensures the effectiveness of port state control throughout our
region.
I would like to welcome the new Chairman of the Technical Evaluation Group (TEG) Mr Michael Michaelides
from Cyprus and thank the outgoing Chairman Mr Pierre Janssen of Belgium for his chairmanship of TEG and
contribution to the Paris MoU over many years and wish him well for his retirement. In conclusion, I wish to
thank the PSCOs and administrators in each of our member Authorities as they are the people who ensure the
success of our endeavours and they are central to the Paris MoU in achieving our goal of safer shipping.
Paris MoU meets in Napels
5
Richard W.J. Schiferli
The much anticipated New Inspection Regime was finally launched on 1 January 2011 after many years of
preparation. It introduced a radical change compared with the old system, which was based on the agreement
from 30 years ago. The change was necessary to bring the Paris MoU in line again with global maritime
developments, introduction of new IMO instruments and a better balanced method of targeting and inspection
of ships. The main objective during the development has been to reward quality shipping and to intensify control
and sanctions on ships with poor performance.
The new regime introduces a major departure from the “25% inspection commitment” and 6 month inspection
intervals, which overburdened the shipping industry and port State control Authorities with inspections. When
the criteria are met, quality ships will be rewarded with a “low risk ship” status and the inspection interval may
be up to 36 months. Even “standard risk ships” benefit from the new system extending inspection intervals
up to 12 months. New to the system is that companies are now also monitored for performance, based on the
inspection history of their ships.
To balance the system, more resources will be directed to those ships with poor safety records, the “high risk
ships”. These ships are subject to mandatory expanded inspections every 6 months when they call at a Paris
MoU port.
A complex system of risk calculations, targeting and recording of inspections is supported by the new data base
“THETIS”, hosted and managed by EMSA in Lisbon. Results of inspections, currently detained ships and banned
ships are now displayed directly from THETIS on the Paris MoU web site.
It should be understood that substandard ships will no longer be tolerated in the region and with the new
refusal of access measures in place, repeated offenders will be “banned” from our ports. This has happened
to a substantial number of ships already, some of which have been recycled in the mean time. Others chose
to find new areas to operate, endangering the lives of the seafarers on board and constituting a risk for the
environment.
The Paris MoU has taken port State control to the next level. With the dedicated help of other MoUs we may be
on the right course to remove sub-standard ships from our seas once and for all.
New inspection regime rewards quality shipping
S t a t e m e n t b y t h e S e c r e t a r y G e n e r a l
6
1.executive summary
There are now 43 f lags on the “White List”, one
more compared with last year. Some f lags have
moved position with Germany leading the list,
followed by Sweden and Denmark.
DPR Korea has disappeared as leader of the
“Black List” since not enough inspections
have taken place over the last 3 years. Libya is
now on the top of the “Black List”, followed by
Bolivia and Togo.
The introduction of the New Inspection
Regime this year will show an impact on the
2011 f igures. This will also have a consequence
for some trends over previous years.
Until last year the detention percentage has
been decreasing gradually. The trend has not
continued and in 2011 the percentage increased
to 3.6%. This can be explained since the focus
of targeting is on ships with a higher priority.
Considered to be the worldwide index for flag performance, the Paris MoU
“White, Grey and Black Lists” indicate further improvements towards quality
shipping. Last year Panama was congratulated for its efforts to move up to the
White List. This year Faroe Islands, Vanuatu, Latvia and Iran moved from the
“Grey List” to the “White List”. A very successful achievement and an example
for other flags that, through determined actions and political courage, changes
can be made. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines moved from the “Black List” to
the Grey List. Kazakhstan and India moved from the “White List” to the “Grey
List”. Dominica and Honduras moved from the “Grey List” to the “Black List”.
e x e c u t i v e s u m m a r y
7
The number of detentions has decreased
significantly from 790 in 2010 to 688 in 2011.
In 2011 a total of 20 ships were banned. 13
more compared with last year. Multiple
detentions was the most common reason for
banning in 2011.
With 1,327 inspections and 152 detentions
the ships f lying a “black listed f lag“ score a
detention rate of 11.45%. For ships f lying a
“grey listed f lag” the detention rate is 7.11%
(1,181 inspections, 84 detentions) and ships
flying a “white listed f lag” 2.65% (16,829
inspections and 446 detentions).
Recognized Organizations are delegated by
flag States and carry out most of the statutory
surveys on behalf of f lags. For this very reason
it is important to monitor their performance.
The best performing RO over the period
2009-2011 is the American Bureau of Shipping
(ABS) followed by Det Norske Veritas (DNV)
and China Classification Society. The worst
performing RO is Phoenix Register of Shipping
(PHRS), located in Piraeus, in Greece.
8
1.executive summary
The task forces, of which 12 were active in 2011,
are each assigned a specific work programme
to investigate improvement of operational,
technical and administrative port State control
procedures. Reports of the task forces are
submitted to the Technical Evaluation Group
(TEG) at which all Paris MoU members and
observers are represented. The evaluation of
the TEG is submitted to the Committee for final
consideration and decision-making.
The MoU Advisory Board advises the Port State
Control Committee on matters of a political and
strategic nature, and provides direction to the
task forces and Secretariat between meetings
of the Committee. The Board meets several
times a year and was in 2011 composed of
participants from Croatia, Italy, Norway, Malta
and the European Commission.
Port State Control Committee
The Port State Control Committee (PSCC) held
its 44th meeting in Naples, Italy from 2-6 May
2011. The MoU has 27 member States. The
Committee agreed that the introduction of the
new inspection regime (NIR) on 1 January 2011
was completed successfully.
The NIR is a risk based targeting mechanism,
which will reward quality shipping with a
reduced inspection burden and concentrate
efforts on high-risk ships. The NIR makes use
of company performance and the Voluntary
IMO Member State Audit Scheme (VIMSAS)
for calculating the risk profile of ships together
with the performance of the flag State and
the Recognized Organization. The inspection
history of the ship as well as the ship’s age
and ship type will influence the targeting. The
NIR is supported by a new information system
“THETIS” which is managed and hosted by
EMSA, using a new system for coding of PSC
related information jointly developed and
mutually agreed by the Paris and Tokyo MoUs.
The Committee recognised that the International
Labour Organization’s Consolidated Maritime
Labour Convention 2006 (MLC 2006) may enter
into force from 2012 onwards and agreed on
guidelines for port State control officers. These
guidelines are based on the MLC 2006 and take
into account the port State control guidelines
from the ILO. Guidelines on STCW (including
the “Manila amendments”), electronic charts,
lifeboat launching arrangements, asbestos,
MARPOL Annex VI and LRIT were also adopted.
The Committee unanimously accepted
Montenegro as a co-operating member with the
prospect of becoming a full member in the future.
Once a year the Port State Control Committee, which is the executive body of
the Paris MoU, meets in one of the member States. The Committee considers
policy matters concerning regional enforcement of port State control, reviews
the work of the Technical Evaluation Group and task forces and decides on
administrative procedures.
P a r i s M o U d e v e l o p m e n t s
9
Issues considered by the TEG included:
• The implementation and transition to the
new inspection regime including the THETIS
information system
• Evaluation of Paris MoU statistics
• Revision of the guidelines on operational
controls
• Revision of the guidelines on STCW
• Development of guidelines for PSCOs for the
Maritime Labour Convention.
• Development of an evaluation procedure for
the training policy
• Development of CICs on Structural Safety
and Load Lines (2011) and Fire Safety Systems
(2012)
Port State Control Training initiatives
The Paris MoU will continue to invest in the
training and development of Port State Control
Officers in order to establish a higher degree
of harmonisation and standardisation in
inspections throughout the region.
The Secretariat organises three different
training programmes for Port State Control
Officers:
• Seminars (twice a year)
• Expert trainings (twice a year)
• Specialized trainings (once a year)
High importance was given to Concentrated
Inspection Campaigns (CICs). A CIC on
structural safety and the Load Line Convention
was scheduled from September to November
2011 and a CIC focussing on fire safety systems
will be carried out during 2012. The campaigns
will be carried out jointly with the Tokyo
MoU. In addition the Committee considered a
number of options for other joint CICs with the
Tokyo MoU for 2013 and beyond.
The report of the CIC on damage stability of
tankers, carried out in 2010, was presented to
PSCC44 and the results will be published and
submitted to the IMO in 2012.
The Committee also agreed to exchange
PSC data with the International Maritime
Organization, to be used in the Global
Integrated Shipping Information System, and to
publish the new coding system for deficiencies
on the Paris MoU website.
Technical Evaluation Group
The Technical Evaluation Group (TEG)
convened in Tallinn, Estonia in February 2011,
and in December 2011 in St. Julians, Malta.
Several task forces submitted reports to the
TEG for evaluation before submission to the
Port State Control Committee.
10
1.executive summary
The Seminars are open to members, cooperating
members and observers. The
agenda is more topical and deals with current
issues such as inspection campaigns and new
requirements.
Expert and Specialized Training aims to
promote a higher degree of professional
knowledge and harmonisation of more complex
port State control issues and procedures. These
5-day training sessions are concluded with an
assessment and certification.
PSC Seminar 51
The 51st Port State Control Seminar was held
from 20 – 22 June 2011 in Klaipeda Lithuania.
Port State Control Officers from the Paris MoU
attended the Seminar, as well as participants
from Montenegro. The main topics of
discussion were the Train the Trainer for the
CIC on Structural Safety and the International
Convention on Load Lines. Furthermore there
where presentations on the Guidance with
regard to Asbestos on board ships and the
new Guidelines on the Inspection of Electronic
Charts. The Secretariat presented an overview
on the decisions and discussions coming from
PSCC44 and a representative from EMSA gave
a presentation on the developments within the
EU and EMSA.
PSC Seminar 52
The 52nd Port State Control Seminar was held
from 13 to 15 December 2011 in Haugesund
Norway. Port State control officers from the
Paris MOU attended the Seminar as well as
participants from Montenegro. The main
topics of discussion were developments with
regard to the Maritime Labour Convention and
the new Manila Amendments to the STCW
Convention which came into force on the 1st
of January 2012. Other topics were the new
Emergency Towing Requirements and Fire
Safety Systems. The Secretariat presented
an overview of developments in the Paris
Mou and a representative from EMSA gave a
presentation on the developments within the
EU and EMSA.
Expert and Specialized Training
For the Expert Training the central themes
are “The Human Element” and “Safety and
Environment”. The theme of the Specialized
Training will change every year. In 2011 this
training dealt with the inspection of Tankers
and the problems Port State Control Officers
may encounter. Both training programmes are
intended for experienced PSCOs. Using that
experience, the participants can work together
to establish a higher degree of harmonisation
and standardisation of their inspection
practice.
Lecturers for the training programmes are
recruited from the maritime Administrations of
the member States, international organizations
and the maritime industry. For the training
programmes in 2011 the United Kingdom, the
Netherlands, Spain, Italy and different ROs and
service companies, among others, provided
lecturers.
In 2011 the IMO was able to sponsor a
representative from each MoU to take part in
P a r i s M o U d e v e l o p m e n t s
11
The 7th Expert Training “Safety and Environment”
The seventh Expert Training programme was
held in The Hague in February 2011. Important
issues during this training were the IMDG
Code, Load Lines, Life saving appliances and oil
filtering equipment.
The 5th Specialized Training on the Inspection of Tankers
The fifth Specialized Training on the Inspection
of Tankers was held in The Hague in April 2011.
During the training tanker stability, chemical
and oil tankers and gas carriers were discussed.
Specific attention was given to the Expanded
Inspection Procedures with regard to tankers.
Training in cooperation with EMSA
The Paris MoU is also assisting EMSA in the
training delivered to PSCOs from throughout
the region.
the training programmes. It was agreed that
one representative from each MoU can attend
the Expert or Specialized Training programme.
Not every MoU was able to send a PSCO to the
training programme. This arrangement began
with the Human Element training in October
and will continue in 2012.
The 10th Expert Training “The Human Element”
In October 2011 the tenth Expert Training
programme was held in The Hague with
the Human Element as the central theme.
Participants from member States took part
in this training. The issues discussed during
the training session were the ILO and STCW
conventions, the Code of Good Practice
and inter-cultural communication. Three
representatives from other MoUs attended the
training
12
1.executive summary
New Entrant and Refresher PSC Seminars
In 2011 the fully established Professional
Development Scheme of the Paris MoU
encompassed 3 seminars for New Entrant
PSCOs and 3 Refresher seminars for
experienced PSCOs. The year 2011 marked
significant changes due to the introduction
of the New Inspection Regime. The New
Regime focuses on sub-standard shipping and
introduces a reward in terms of the inspection
frequency for good performing ships. It
translates to “less, but better inspections”.
The New Regime also forced new and enhanced
procedures to be implemented, all aiming at
providing more guidance for better inspections.
These changes meant that adherence to the
established procedures became of paramount
importance.
For the seminars organised for New Entrants
and Refreshers held during 2011 a complete new
approach was adopted to raise the awareness
concerning the procedures governing PSC
inspections. While until December 2010 an
inspection had been the central theme during
these seminars, since January 2011 this theme has
been changed to be the Paris MoU procedures.
Moreover, rather than plainly lecturing on
procedures, the seminars focussed on the correct
application of the procedures where relevant.
The main challenge for the new approach was
to present the material in an attractive and
interactive way. Feedback from all PSCOs who
participated in one of the 6 seminars held during
2011 emphasized the success of the change.
As with the seminars organised in earlier years,
the main objective remained the establishment
of a common understanding and harmonised
approach in the area of the Paris MoU.
Feedback sessions with participants during
the seminars indicated that indeed a wider
understanding of the procedures and the
available tools such as the Paris MoU manual,
RuleCheck and the Distance Learning modules
was established by the seminars. This suggests
that the adapted concept of the seminars is
conducive in achieving the objective.
All seminars were organised by EMSA and
held at its premises in Lisbon. Lecturers were
provided both by EMSA and the Paris MoU
P a r i s M o U d e v e l o p m e n t s
13
In two cases the detention review panel
concluded that the port State’s decision to
detain was not justified. The panel advised the
port State to reconsider the detention. In three
cases the panel concluded that the detaining
port States would not have to reconsider the
decision to detain.
Quality management
On 15 March 2011 the Paris MoU Secretariat
became ISO 9001:2008 certified for the
services and products of the Secretariat.
Paris MoU on the Internet
The development of the new website resulted
in the launch of a more contemporary and
restyled Paris MoU website on 17th January
2011. The website enjoyed an ever increasing
demand from a variety of visitors during
2011, in particular from flag and port States,
government agencies, charterers, insurers
and classification societies. They were
able to monitor their performance and the
Secretariat. The almost 300 participants
attending the New Entrant and Refresher
seminars during 2011 originated from all Paris
MoU member States.
Detention Review Panel
Flag States or Recognized Organizations
that cannot resolve a dispute concerning a
detention with the port State may submit their
case for review. The detention review panel is
composed of representatives of four different
MoU Authorities, on a rotating basis, plus the
Secretariat.
In 2011 the Secretariat received 10 requests
for review. Five cases did not comply with
the requirements for consideration. These
cases were either submitted beyond the 120
days limit, were handled at National Courts
or originated from ship owners instead of flag
States or ROs. Five cases were recorded by the
Secretariat and submitted to MoU members for
review.
14
1.executive summary
performance of others on a continuous basis.
The port State enters ships that are currently
under detention in a listing. Validated port
State control reports can be accessed and offer
visitors more detailed information.
To increase public awareness of unsafe ships
caught by port State control, particularly serious
detentions are published under the heading
"Caught in the Net'. These detentions are
described in detail with photographs. In 2011
details were published of the following ships:
• Celine-1
• Anna N
• Abit Beser
• Grace S
• Friendship
The annual award for the best contribution to
“Caught in the Net” has been presented to
Canada (Friendship).
Other information of interest such as the
monthly list of detentions, the Annual Report,
the statistics of the “Blue Book” and news
items can be downloaded from the website,
which is found at www.parismou.org.
Concentrated inspection campaigns
Several Concentrated Inspection Campaigns
have been held in the Paris MoU Region
over the past years. The campaigns focus
on a particular area of compliance with
international regulations with the aim of
gathering information and enforcing the level
of compliance. Each campaign is prepared by
experts and identifies a number of specific
items for inspection. Experience shows that
they serve to draw attention to the chosen area
of compliance.
CIC 2011 Structural Safety and Load Lines
In the period from 1 September to 30
November 2011 a Concentrated Inspection
Campaign was carried out on Structural Safety
and the International Convention on Load
Lines.
The CIC questionnaire was completed during
4,386 inspections, a total of 1,589 CIC-related
deficiencies were recorded and 42 ships (1%)
were detained for CIC-related deficiencies.
Problem areas included stability, strength and
loading information, ballast and fuel tanks and
water and weather tight conditions.
During the campaign most inspections
concerned general cargo/multi-purpose ships
with 1,563 (36%) inspections, followed by bulk
carriers with 795 (18%) inspections, container
ships with 495 (11%) inspections, chemical
tankers with 433 (10%) inspections and oil
tankers with 296 (7%) inspections.
P a r i s M o U d e v e l o p m e n t s
15
16
1.executive summary
24 (60%) of the ships detained for CIC-related
deficiencies were general cargo/multipurpose
ships and 5 (12%) were bulk carriers. Among
the other detained ships were 2 container
vessels, 2 offshore supply ships, 2 passenger
ships and 2 refrigerated cargo ships. 31% of the
detained ships were 30 years or older.
Analysis of the recorded deficiencies shows that
most deficiencies relate to the freeboard marks
(12%), ventilators, air pipes and casings (7%),
stability/strength/loading information and
instruments (7%) and ballast, fuel and other
tanks (5%).
Most inspections were carried out on ships
under the flags of Panama with 493 (11%)
inspections, Malta with 387 (9%) inspections,
Antigua and Barbuda with 343 (8%) inspections
and Liberia with 306 (7%) inspections.
The flags with the highest number of CIC
related detentions were Panama with 7 (17%)
detentions, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
with 6 (14%) detentions and Turkey with 3 (7%)
detentions.
The background for this CIC was that, as an
average for the last 8 years, deficiencies related
to structural safety and load lines account for
15% of the total number of deficiencies. During
the CIC 13% of the deficiencies recorded were
related to structural safety and load lines.
CIC Campaigns 2012 and 2013
For 2012, the PSC Committee decided on a
Concentrated Inspection Campaign on Fire
Safety Systems. For 2013, the Committee agreed
to organize a CIC campaign on Propulsion and
Auxiliary Machinery.
Co-operation with other organizations
The strength of regional regimes of port State
control, which are bound by geographical
circumstances and interests, is widely
recognised. Nine regional MoUs have been
established.
In order to provide co-operation to these
MoUs, they may apply for associate or observer
status. Regional agreements seeking observer
status must demonstrate that their member
Authorities have an acceptable overall flag State
record and have a similar approach in terms
of commitment and goals to that of the Paris
MoU.
Five regional agreements have obtained official
observer status to the Paris MoU: the Tokyo
MoU, Caribbean MoU, Mediterranean MoU,
Black Sea MoU and Riyadh MoU. The United
States Coast Guard is also an observer at Paris
MoU meetings.
The West and Central Africa MoU obtained
an associate status. It will not be represented
in the Committee, but there is a commitment
from the Paris MoU to assist them on a
technical and administrative basis, including
participation in seminars and technical
meetings.
The International Labour Organization and
the International Maritime Organization have
participated in the meetings of the Paris MoU
P a r i s M o U d e v e l o p m e n t s
17
on a regular basis since 1982. In 2006 the
Paris MoU obtained official status at the IMO
as an Inter Governmental Organization. A
delegation of the MoU participated in the 19th
session of the Sub-Committee on Flag State
Implementation in February 2011.
The 2009 Annual Report including inspection
data, an analysis of 2009 statistics, a combined
list of flags targeted by the Paris MoU, Tokyo
MoU and USCG and the results of the CIC
on Lifeboat launching appliances, as well as
information on Flag criteria to be regarded as
low risk ship in the Paris MoU, information
on the Paris & Tokyo MoU New PSC Coding
System and a new Guideline for PSCOs on
the ISM Code were submitted to the Sub-
Committee on Flag State Implementation in
February 2011.
Membership of the Paris MoU
In preparation for prospective new members
of the Paris MoU, the Port State Control
Committee has adopted criteria for cooperating
status for non-member States and
observer/associate status for other PSC regions.
Specific criteria, including a self-evaluation
exercise, have to be made before co-operating
status can be granted.
In 2011 the maritime Authority of Montenegro
joined the MoU as a co-operating member and
was visited by a monitoring team, which issued
recommendations for improvements.
The Paris MoU currently has 6 members with
dual or even triple membership:
Canada and the Russian Federation with the
Tokyo MoU, while the Russian Federation is
also a member of the Black Sea MoU.
With Bulgaria and Romania there are further
ties with the Black Sea MoU.
Malta and Cyprus are also members of the
Mediterranean MoU.
For all these members the Paris MoU standards
will prevail.
18
1.executive summary
In the following pages the facts and figures of 2011 are listed. The New
Inspection Regime entered into force on the 1st of January 2011. Consequently
the targeting of ships for inspection has changed; inspection figures from
2011 onwards should not be compared to the ones from 2010 and before. Due
to the new regime the figures show a decrease in the number of inspections,
deficiencies and detentions, but an increase in the number of individual
inspected ships and the detention rate.
Inspections
With a total number of 19,058 inspections
performed in 2011 the inspection f igures
showed a decrease of 21% compared with
the figures of 2011. Each individual ship was
inspected an average of 1.2 times per year, a
rate which has dropped since 2010 (1.6).
The New Inspection Regime shifts from a
national commitment, where each member
state of the Paris MoU inspected 25% of the
individual ships calling at their ports, to a
regional commitment aiming to inspect all
ships visiting the ports and anchorages in the
Paris MoU region. As a result since 1 January
2011 the annual inspection target for each
member State is based on ship movement data
rather than individual ship calls. The Fair Share
commitment for each individual Paris MoU
member State was therefore calculated based
on historic ship movement data.
Def iciencies
In 2009 the number of deficiencies recorded
was 71,911. In 2010 this number was: 64,698. In
2011 the number of deficiencies decreased to
50,738. Compared with 2010 this is a decrease
of deficiencies of 22%.
In 56% of all inspections performed, one or
more deficiencies were recorded. In 2010 this
figure was 55%.
The average number of deficiencies per
inspection also decreased from 2,7 in 2010 to
2,6 in 2011.
Detentions
Some deficiencies are clearly hazardous to
safety, health or the environment and the ship
is detained until they are rectified. Detention
rates are expressed as a percentage of the
number of inspections, rather than the number
of individual ships inspected to take account
of the fact that some ships are detained more
than once a year.
Compared with 2010, the number of detentions
has decreased from 790 to 688 detentions.
The average detention rate in 2011 is 3,61%.
f a c t s a n d f i g u r e s 2 0 1 1
19
In 2010 the detention rate was 3,28%, the
lowest detention rate ever. This is the first time
in years that the average detention rate has
increased.
“White, Grey and Black List”
The “White, Grey and Black (WGB) List”
presents the full spectrum, from quality f lags
to f lags with a poor performance that are
considered high or very high risk. It is based on
the total number of inspections and detentions
over a 3-year rolling period for f lags with at
least 30 inspections in the period.
On the “White, Grey and Black list” for 2011
a total number of 80 f lags are listed: 43 on
the “White List”, 20 on the “Grey List” and
17 on the “Black list”. In 2010 the number of
flags listed totalled 84 f lags, namely 42 on the
“White List”, 24 on the “Grey List” and 18 on
the “Black List”.
The “White List” represents quality f lags with
a consistently low detention record. Compared
with last year, the number of f lags on the
“White List” has increased by 1 f lag to a total
number of 43 f lags. New on the “White List”
are the Faroe Islands (DK), Vanuatu, Latvia and
the Islamic Republic of Iran, last year still on
the “Grey List”.
Germany has been placed highest on the list
in terms of performance. The next in line of
the best performing f lags in 2011 are Sweden,
Denmark, the Netherlands and the United
Kingdom.
Flags with an average performance are shown
on the “Grey List”. Their appearance on this list
may act as an incentive to improve and move
to the “White List”. At the same time f lags
at the lower end of the “Grey List” should be
careful not to neglect control over their ships
and risk ending up on the “Black List” next
year.
On this year’s “Grey List” a total number of
20 f lags is recorded. Last year the “Grey List”
recorded 24 f lags. New on the “Grey List” is
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, last year still
20
1.executive summary
for f lag States. To calculate the performance
of the Recognized Organizations, the same
formula to calculate the excess factor of
the f lags is used. A minimum number of
60 inspections per RO are needed before
the performance is taken into account for
the list. In 2011 28 ROs are recorded on the
performance list.
Among the best performing recognized
organizations were:
• American Bureau of Shipping (ABS)
• Det Norske Veritas (DNV)
• China Classification Society (CCS)
The lowest performing Recognized
Organizations were:
• Phoenix Register of Shipping (Greece)
(PHRS)
• Register of Shipping (Albania) (RSA)
• International Register of Shipping (USA) (IS)
Compared with last year’s performance level,
a small shift in RO performance in 2011 can
be noticed. This year fewer organizations
have been placed on the high and very
low performing part of the list and more
organizations have been placed on the medium
part of the list.
Details of the responsibility of Recognized
Organizations for detainable deficiencies have
been published since 1999. When one or more
detainable deficiencies are attributed to a
Recognized Organization in accordance with
the criteria, it is recorded “RO responsible”
and the RO is informed. Out of 688 detentions
recorded in 2011, 91 or 13.2% were considered
RO related which is an increase compared with
the 10.6% of the previous year.
Refusal of access of ships
A total of 20 ships were banned from the Paris
MoU region in 2011 for reasons of multiple
detentions (17) failure to call at an indicated
repair yard (2) and jumping detention (1). As
of 1 January 2011 not having a valid ISM code
certificate is no longer a reason for banning. A
number of ships remain banned from previous
years.
on the “Black List”, and Kazakhstan and India,
which last year still were on the “White List”.
The poorest performing f lags are Libya, Bolivia
and Togo. New on the “Black List” are the f lags
of Honduras and Dominica (medium risk).
A graph of the distribution of listed and not
listed f lags indicates that only 0.5% of the
ships inspected are from flags not listed on the
WGB list.
Ship type
In 2011 the detention rate of general cargo/
multipurpose ships (6.02%) was higher than
the detention rate of other ship types. Ship
types like passenger ships, refrigerated cargo
ships and other special activities ships have a
lower detention rate of 4.42%, 4.12 and 4.08%
respectively. The other ship types have even
lower detention rates.
Performance of Recognized Organizations
For several years the Committee has closely
monitored the performance of classification
societies acting as Recognized Organizations
f a c t s a n d f i g u r e s 2 0 1 1
21
Fire safety
In 2011 deficiencies in f ire safety accounted
for 12.9% of the total number of deficiencies.
The number of deficiencies in these areas
decreased with 14.3% from 7,687 in 2010 to
6,591 in 2011.
Pollution prevention
Deficiencies in MARPOL Annex I show a
decrease of 16.9% in 2011 (1,318), compared
with 2010 (1,586). Deficiencies in MARPOL
Annex VI show an increase of 22.2% in 2011
(358), compared with 2010 (293).
Working and living conditions
Deficiencies in working conditions decreased
with 25.6% from 7,057 in 2010 to 5,252 in 2011.
Deficiencies in living conditions decreased with
21.1% from 2,932 in 2010 to 2,313 in 2011.
Management
The number of ISM related deficiencies
showed a decrease of 52.5%, compared with
2010.
Def iciencies per major category
The number of deficiencies in areas such as
certificate & documentation, f ire safety, safety
of navigation and working & living conditions
accounted for approximately 55% of the total
number of deficiencies. The trends in these
areas are clarified below.
In 2011 a new coding system has taken effect.
More detailed information may be found in the
statistical Annexes to this report. The data of
2009 and 2010 has been regrouped accordingly
and is therefore not comparable with the data
as published in the Annual Reports from 2010
and before.
Certif icate & Documentation
Deficiencies in ships’ certificates, crew
certificates and documents indicated a
decrease of 35.5% from 11,834 in 2010 to 7,638
in 2011.
Safety of navigation
The deficiencies in Safety of Navigation show a
decrease of 24.6%, from 8,654 deficiencies in
2010 to 6,528 deficiencies in 2011.
1.executive summary
23
statistical annexes
annual report 2011
24
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
14,753
14,762
2011
11,823
12,538
13,024
13,417
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
14,182
2009
15,237
15,268
2010
12,382
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
19,766
19,058
20,309
20,316
21,302
21,566
22,877
24,647
24,186
24,058
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 2010 2011
n u m b e r o f i n d i v i d u a l
n umb e r o f i n s p e c t i o n s s h i p s i n s p e c t e d
b a s i c p o r t s t a t e c o n t r o l f i g u r e s 2 0 1 1
25
69,079
71,928
64,113
62,434
66,142
74,713
83,751
71,911
64,698
50,738
0
20,000
10,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
1,577
1,431
1,187
994
790
1,174
1,250
1,220
1,059
688
0
400
200
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2006 2006 2006 2010 2011
4
3
2
1
6
5
10
9
8
7
7.98
7.05
5.84
4.67
5.44
5.46
4.95
4.38
3.61
3.28
0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
d e t e n t i o n s i n % o f
i n s p e c t i o n s n u m b e r o f d e t e n t i o n s
n u m b e r o f d e f i c i e n c i e s
o b s e r v e d
Note: The New Inspection Regime entered into force on the 1 st of January 2011. C onsequently the targeting of ships for
inspection has changed; inspection figures from 2011 onwards should not be compared to the ones from 2010 and before.
26
b a s i c p o r t s t a t e c o n t r o l f i g u r e s
Commitment
Inspections relevant for commitment
Italy
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
Belgium
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Cyprus
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Iceland
Ireland
Latvia
Lithuania
Malta
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russian Federation
Slovania
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
0
Belgium
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Cyprus
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Malta
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russian Federation
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
Inspections
971
528
835
260
125
382
185
316
1225
1403
990
62
234
1706
246
182
230
1583
594
432
445
776
956
240
1727
356
1541
Commitment
1401
331
819
296
273
445
179
344
1520
1424
1028
66
393
2034
225
168
204
1913
561
414
576
512
877
242
1759
722
1743
Belgium
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Cyprus
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Malta
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russian Federation
Slovania
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
2,000
1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
High Risk Ship Inspection
Standard Risk Ship Inspection
Low Risk Ship Inspection
Ship Risk Profile unknown
HRS, SRS and LRS inspections per member state
Commitment
i n s p e c t i o n e f f o r t s
27
Inspection efforts of members as percentage of MoU total
Belgium 5.1% Bulgaria 2.9%
Canada 4.7%
Croatia 1.4%
Cyprus 0.7%
Denmark 2.1%
Estonia 1.0%
Finland 1.7%
France 6.6%
Germany 7.4%
Greece 5.3%
Iceland 0.3%
Ireland 1.3%
Italy 9.0%
Latvia 1.3%
Lithuania 1.0% Malta 1.2%
Netherlands 8.4%
Norway 3.2%
Poland 2.3%
Portugal 2.4%
Romania 4.1%
Russian Federation 5.5%
Slovenia 1.3%
Spain 9.4%
Sweden 2.2%
United Kingdom 8.4%
28
MoU port States’s individual contributions to the total amount of inspections
MOU
port
State
Total nr of Inspections
Inspections with deficiencies
Inspections with detentions
Inspections with RO related
detainable deficiencies
% Inspections with
deficiencies
% Detentions
% Inspection of MoU
total
% HRS
% SRS
% LSR
% SRP Unknown
Belgium 971 578 11 0 59,5 1,13 5,09 3,69 77,77 2,15 16,39
Bulgaria 552 415 24 8 75,2 4,35 2,18 28,99 54,89 0,54 15,58
Canada1
895 397 34 5 44,4 3,80 4,70 2,80 56,61 4,48 36,10
Croatia 269 171 12 1 63,6 4,46 1,41 25,28 60,59 1,49 12,64
Cyprus 127 69 10 3 54,3 7,87 0,67 8,73 71,43 1,59 18,25
Denmark 400 181 2 0 45,3 0,50 2,10 3,00 78,25 3,50 15,25
Estonia 196 53 1 0 27,0 0,51 1,03 3,08 79,49 3,59 13,85
Finland 316 100 2 0 31,6 0,63 1,66 1,50 83,78 7,51 7,21
France 1253 776 38 2 61,9 3,03 6,57 5,43 76,94 2,95 14,68
Germany 1411 635 37 2 45,0 2,62 7,40 2,34 83,20 3,76 10,70
Greece 1015 582 54 11 57,3 5,32 5,33 21,48 59,51 1,38 17,64
Iceland 63 14 1 1 22,2 1,59 0,33 3,17 84,13 0,00 12,70
Ireland 242 137 14 3 56,6 5,79 1,27 6,20 83,06 3,31 7,44
Italy 1707 1024 114 22 60,0 6,68 8,96 11,07 68,65 0,91 19,36
Latvia 246 57 1 0 23,2 0,41 1,29 6,94 82,86 2,86 7,35
Lithuania 185 105 1 1 56,8 0,54 0,97 7,57 78,38 1,62 12,43
Malta 237 147 10 2 62,0 4,22 1,24 3,43 61,80 1,29 33,48
Netherlands 1604 864 55 3 53,9 3,43 8,42 4,24 65,96 1,93 27,87
Norway 615 198 8 1 32,2 1,30 3,23 2,60 76,75 4,55 16,10
Poland 432 308 12 0 71,3 2,78 2,27 3,17 82,81 0,68 13,35
Portugal 448 230 8 3 51,3 1,79 2,35 7,37 75,89 1,56 15,18
Romania 776 401 17 3 51,7 2,19 4,07 30,04 57,12 0,13 12,71
Russian
Federation2 1039 752 24 3 72,4 2,31 5,45 21,94 65,54 1,83 10,68
Slovenia 240 121 29 5 50,4 12,08 1,26 8,75 74,17 1,67 15,42
Spain 1794 1127 122 12 62,8 6,80 9,41 7,81 74,51 1,23 16,45
Sweden 421 161 5 1 38,2 1,19 2,21 1,43 84,56 5,23 8,79
United Kingdom 1604 1128 42 3 70,3 2,62 8,42 4,18 77,62 3,12 15,09
Total 19058 10731 688 95 56,3 3,61 100 8,96 71,82 2,40 16,83
1 Inspections in C anada west coast ports are included
2 Only inspections in the Russian ports of the Baltic, Azov and Barents Seas are included
29
30
31
Flag Inspections
2009-2011
Detentions
2009-2011
Black to
Grey
limit
Grey to
White
limit
Excess
Factor
White l i s t
Germany 1,335 10 109 78 -1.91
Sweden 810 5 69 44 -1.90
Denmark 1,376 15 112 80 -1.78
Netherlands 3,691 49 284 232 -1.78
United Kingdom 1,905 25 152 115 -1.73
France 337 2 32 15 -1.70
Hong Kong, China 1,489 20 121 88 -1.69
Singapore 1,370 19 112 80 -1.66
Italy 1,471 21 120 86 -1.66
Greece 1,334 19 109 78 -1.65
Finland 562 6 50 29 -1.64
Croatia 153 0 16 5 -1.62
Man, Isle o f , UK 828 12 71 45 -1.56
Bahamas 3,265 67 253 204 -1.50
Norway 2,023 40 161 122 -1.48
Poland 189 1 20 7 -1.47
Belgium 233 2 23 9 -1.42
Liberia 4,270 105 327 271 -1.38
Bermuda, UK 270 3 26 12 -1.36
Cyprus 2,422 59 191 148 -1.33
Ireland 165 1 17 6 -1.33
Gibraltar, UK 1,208 27 100 69 -1.31
Spain 257 3 25 11 -1.31
Marshall Islands 2,361 59 186 144 -1.31
China 241 3 24 10 -1.24
Korea, Republic of 141 1 15 4 -1.13
Estonia 89 0 11 2 -1.02
Malta 5,301 186 402 340 -1.01
Barbados 463 11 42 23 -1.01
Luxembourg 195 3 20 7 -0.96
Cayman Islands, UK 282 6 27 12 -0.91
Russian Federation 1,644 60 133 98 -0.83
Antigua and Barbuda 4,767 196 363 304 -0.79
Portugal 496 15 45 25 -0.78
Philippines 250 6 25 10 -0.73
Panama 7,611 345 570 496 -0.69
Lithuania 216 5 22 8 -0.68
Turkey 2,107 96 167 128 -0.54
Faroe Islands (DK) 193 5 20 7 -0.49
Japan 91 1 11 2 -0.48
Vanuatu 203 6 21 8 -0.37
Latvia 109 2 13 3 -0.33
Iran, Islamic Republic of 134 4 15 4 -0.01
w h i t e l i s t
32
b a s i c p o r t s t a t e c o n t r o l f i g u r e s
33
Flag Inspections
2009-2011
Detentions
2009-2011
Black to
Grey
limit
Grey to
White
limit
Excess
Factor
Grey l i s t
Kazakhstan 42 0 6 0 0.04
United States of America 174 7 18 6 0.07
Saudi Arabia 59 1 8 0 0.08
Malaysia 57 1 8 0 0.09
Thailand 77 2 10 1 0.09
Switzerland 96 3 11 2 0.10
India 129 5 14 4 0.12
Bulgaria 141 7 15 4 0.24
Belize 644 40 56 34 0.27
Morocco 131 7 14 4 0.30
Curacao 490 32 44 25 0.38
Tuvalu 39 2 6 0 0.38
Tunisia 53 3 7 0 0.40
Slovakia 140 9 15 4 0.43
Algeria 85 6 10 2 0.51
Egypt 105 9 12 3 0.67
Viet Nam 38 4 6 0 0.72
Cook Islands 160 14 17 5 0.74
Jamaica 36 5 6 0 0.91
Saint Vincent and
the Grenadines 1,586 126 128 94 0.94
g r e y l i s t
34
35
Flag
Inspections
2009-2011
Detentions
2009-2011
Black to
Grey
limit
Grey to
White
limit
Excess
Factor
Black l i s t
Honduras 59 8 8
medium
risk
1.06
Dominica 144 16 16 1.07
Syrian Arab Republic 166 19 18 1.25
Lebanon 74 10 9 1.25
Azerbaijan 34 6 5 1.46
Ukraine 372 42 35 1.59
Georgia 647 72 56 1.73
Cambodia 768 91 66
medium
to high
risk
2.00
Comoros 593 76 52 2.22
Saint Ki t t s and Nevis 416 60 38 2.57
Moldova, Republic of 590 88 52 2.86
Albania 175 32 18
high
risk
3.24
Tanzania United Rep. 130 25 14 3.29
Sierra Leone 476 85 43 3.69
Togo 205 42 21
very
high
risk
4.01
Bolivia 46 12 7 4.03
Libya 46 14 7 5.24
b l a c k l i s t
36
F l a g s m e e t i n g c r i t e r i a f o r L o w R i s k S h i p s 2 0 1 1
Flags meeting criteria for Low Risk Ships (as per 31 December 2011)
Bahamas Italy
Belgium Japan
Bermuda, UK Liberia
China Luxembourg
Cyprus Marshall Islands
Denmark Netherlands
Estonia Norway
Finland Panama
France Poland
Germany Republic of Korea
Gibraltar, UK Russian Federation
Greece Singapore
Hong Kong, China Spain
India Sweden
Ireland United Kingdom
Isle of Man, UK
Not listed flags having undergone IMO VIMSAS Audit
Australia Canada
To meet the criteria for Low Risk Ships, flags should be on the Paris MoU White list and have submitted
evidence of having undergone an IMO VIMSAS Audit.
Flags who's total number of inspections over a 3-years rolling period does not meet the minimum of 30 are
not included in the Paris MoU White list. C onsequently some flags cannot meet the criteria for their ships to
qualify as Low Risk Ships under the Paris MoU, despite having undergone the IMO VIMSAS audit.
37
38
D i s t r i b u t i o n o f l i s t e d a n d n o t l i s t e d f l a g s 2 0 0 9 - 2 0 1 1
Not listed 1%
White flags
Black flags
Grey flags
United Arab Emirates
Argentina Austria
Australia
Grenada
Nigeria
Eritrea
Mexico Venezuela
Chile Guinea
Kuwait
Qatar
Mongolia
Korea,
Democratic
People's Rep.
Seychelles
Bahrain
Israel Kiribati
Taiwan, China
Sri Lanka
Canada
Montenegro
Turkmenistan
Bangladesh
Myanmar
Indonesia
Iceland
Romania
Dominican Republic
Mauritius
Brazil
Slovenia
Pakistan
Maldives
Equatorial Guinea
Falkland Islands
Cape Verde
L i s t e d a n d n o t l i s t e d f l a g s
39
Flag
Nr of
Inspections
Inspections
with
detentions
Inspections
with
deficiencies
Nr of
Individual ships
inspected
% of
inspections
with
detentions
% of
inspections
with
deficiencies
Albania 44 7 38 20 15.91 86.36
Algeria 26 1 22 22 3.85 84.62
Antigua and Barbuda 1263 59 735 869 4.67 58.19
Australia 1 0 1 1 0.00 100.00
Austria 1 0 0 1 0.00 0.00
Azerbaijan 7 1 5 4 14.29 71.43
Bahamas 875 18 449 702 2.06 51.31
Bahrain 7 0 1 5 0.00 14.29
Bangladesh 3 1 3 3 33.33 100.00
Barbados 108 2 57 85 1.85 52.78
Belgium 81 0 44 67 0.00 54.32
Belize 182 13 143 125 7.14 78.57
Bermuda, UK 82 3 34 72 3.66 41.46
Bolivia 12 5 10 6 41.67 83.33
Br a z i l 4 0 3 3 0.00 75.00
Bulgaria 30 1 22 21 3.33 73.33
Cambodia 216 18 197 123 8.33 91.20
Canada 6 0 2 6 0.00 33.33
Cape Verde 2 0 2 2 0.00 100.00
Cayman Islands, UK 102 3 51 96 2.94 50.00
Chile 1 0 1 1 0.00 100.00
China 62 2 29 58 3.23 46.77
Comoros 138 10 124 88 7.25 89.86
Cook Islands 57 4 47 34 7.02 82.46
Croatia 48 0 18 41 0.00 37.50
Curacao 109 7 76 74 6.42 69.72
Cyprus 659 14 366 497 2.12 55.54
Denmark 431 3 196 347 0.70 45.48
Dominica 45 8 34 28 17.78 75.56
Dominican Republic 1 0 1 1 0.00 100.00
Egypt 29 3 19 21 10.34 65.52
Estonia 27 0 8 18 0.00 29.63
Falkland Islands 2 0 0 1 0.00 0.00
Faroe Islands 78 2 36 54 2.56 46.15
Finland 152 1 66 123 0.66 43.42
France 103 0 57 88 0.00 55.34
Georgia 150 12 132 91 8.00 88.00
i n s p e c t i o n s , d e t e n t i o n s a n d d e f i c i e n c i e s 2 0 1 1
40
Flag
Nr of
Inspections
Inspections
with
detentions
Inspections
with
deficiencies
Nr of
Individual ships
inspected
% of
inspections
with
detentions
% of
inspections
with
deficiencies
Germany 350 2 163 286 0.57 46.57
Gibraltar, UK 313 9 172 214 2.88 54.95
Greece 365 7 161 327 1.92 44.11
Guinea 1 0 1 1 0.00 100.00
Honduras 14 4 11 11 28.57 78.57
Hong Kong, China 495 8 234 448 1.62 47.27
Iceland 4 0 4 4 0.00 100.00
India 51 3 29 43 5.88 56.86
Indonesia 2 0 2 1 0.00 100.00
Iran, Islamic Republic of 39 0 32 24 0.00 82.05
Ireland 40 0 17 35 0.00 42.50
Isle of Man, UK 211 5 82 191 2.37 38.86
Israel 8 0 5 8 0.00 62.50
Italy 449 6 240 379 1.34 53.45
Jamaica 4 0 1 4 0.00 25.00
Japan 25 0 10 24 0.00 40.00
Kazakhstan 16 0 9 16 0.00 56.25
Ki r i b a t i 5 1 5 4 20.00 100.00
Korea, Democratic People's
Republic of 1 0 1 1 0.00 100.00
Korea, Republic of 33 0 18 32 0.00 54.55
Kuwait 12 1 4 11 8.33 33.33
Latvia 28 0 16 18 0.00 57.14
Lebanon 26 5 23 15 19.23 88.46
Liberia 1271 26 645 1108 2.05 50.75
Libya 10 3 6 8 30.00 60.00
Lithuania 66 1 30 42 1.52 45.45
Luxembourg 56 0 29 49 0.00 51.79
Malaysia 19 1 9 16 5.26 47.37
Malta 1575 62 829 1227 3.94 52.63
Marshall Islands 808 28 388 702 3.47 48.02
Mauritius 3 1 2 2 33.33 66.67
Moldova, Republic of 196 19 172 97 9.69 87.76
Mongolia 2 0 2 2 0.00 100.00
Morocco 35 1 31 21 2.86 88.57
Myanmar 2 0 1 2 0.00 50.00
Netherlands 986 18 488 775 1.83 49.49
i n s p e c t i o n s , d e t e n t i o n s a n d d e f i c i e n c i e s 2 0 1 1
41
Flag
Nr of
Inspections
Inspections
with
detentions
Inspections
with
deficiencies
Nr of
Individual ships
inspected
% of
inspections
with
detentions
% of
inspections
with
deficiencies
Norway 508 4 275 445 0.79 54.13
Pakistan 2 0 1 2 0.00 50.00
Panama 2211 97 1205 1859 4.39 54.50
Philippines 88 2 57 74 2.27 64.77
Poland 56 0 35 42 0.00 62.50
Portugal 128 5 82 91 3.91 64.06
Qatar 8 0 3 7 0.00 37.50
Romania 2 0 1 2 0.00 50.00
Russian Federation 465 11 296 396 2.37 63.66
Saint Ki t t s and Nevis 101 8 86 64 7.92 85.15
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 394 37 306 258 9.39 77.66
Saudi Arabia 16 0 3 15 0.00 18.75
Seychelles 5 0 1 4 0.00 20.00
Sierra Leone 122 18 116 77 14.75 95.08
Singapore 444 8 204 403 1.80 45.95
Slovakia 19 1 18 7 5.26 94.74
Slovenia 4 0 2 4 0.00 50.00
Spain 75 0 41 65 0.00 54.67
Sr i Lanka 6 0 4 4 0.00 66.67
Sweden 180 1 85 132 0.56 47.22
Switzerland 28 0 16 26 0.00 57.14
Syrian Arab Republic 23 2 18 16 8.70 78.26
Taiwan, China 3 1 3 2 33.33 100.00
Tanzania, United Republic of 65 15 63 46 23.08 96.92
Thailand 16 0 9 15 0.00 56.25
Togo 72 9 66 43 12.50 91.67
Tunisia 17 0 15 10 0.00 88.24
Turkey 587 28 357 471 4.78 60.92
Turkmenistan 2 0 1 2 0.00 50.00
Tuvalu 15 1 13 10 6.67 86.67
Ukraine 96 10 79 75 10.42 82.29
United Arab Emirates 10 2 8 10 20.00 80.00
United Kingdom 585 8 276 490 1.37 47.18
United States 95 6 62 81 6.32 65.26
Vanuatu 77 2 54 63 2.60 70.13
Venezuela 1 1 1 1 100.00 100.00
Viet Nam 11 1 8 9 9.09 72.73
42
Flag
Inspections
Detentions
Detentions % 2011
Excess of average
2011
Detentions % 2010
Excess of average
2010
Bermuda, UK 82 3 3,66 0,08 0,00 -3,29
Algeria 26 1 3,85 0,26 8,33 5,05
Portugal 128 5 3,91 0,32 1,66 -1,63
Malta 1575 62 3,94 0,35 2,71 -0,58
Panama 2211 97 4,39 0,80 3,36 0,07
Antigua and Barbuda 1263 59 4,67 1,09 4,00 0,71
Turkey 586 28 4,78 1,20 4,35 1,06
India 51 3 5,88 2,30 2,70 -0,58
United States 95 6 6,32 2,73 2,27 -1,01
Curacao 109 7 6,42 2,84 3,93 0,65
Cook Islands 57 4 7,02 3,43 9,26 5,97
Belize 182 13 7,14 3,56 3,32 0,03
Comoros 138 10 7,25 3,66 13,00 9,72
Saint Ki t t s and Nevis 101 8 7,92 4,34 17,99 14,70
Georgia 150 12 8,00 4,42 10,74 7,45
Cambodia 216 18 8,33 4,75 11,76 8,48
Syrian Arab Republic 23 2 8,70 5,11 12,07 8,78
Saint Vincent and the
Grenadines 394 38 9,39 5,81 6,17 2,89
Moldova, Republic of 196 19 9,69 6,11 17,08 13,80
Egypt 29 3 10,34 6,76 6,06 2,77
Ukraine 96 10 10,42 6,83 11,54 8,25
Togo 72 9 12,50 8,92 23,08 19,79
Sierra Leone 122 18 14,75 11,17 15,63 12,34
Albania 44 8 15,91 12,33 16,44 13,15
Dominica 45 8 17,78 14,19 5,08 1,80
Lebanon 26 5 19,23 15,65 14,29 11,00
Tanzania,
United Republic of 65 15 23,08 19,49 9,62 6,33
D e t e n t i o n s p e r f l a g i n 2 0 1 1
e xceeding average percentage
Only flags with 20 and more port State control inspections in 2011 and with a detention percentage exceeding
the average percentage of 3,61% are recorded in this graph.
43
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00
Bermuda, UK
Algeria
Portugal
Malta
Panama
Antigua and Barbuda
Turkey
India
United States
Curacao
Cook Islands
Belize
Comoros
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Georgia
Cambodia
Syrian Arab Republic
Saint Vincent
and the Grenadines
Moldova, Republic of
Egypt
Ukraine
Togo
Sierra Leone
Albania
Dominica
Lebanon
Tanzania,
United Republic of
Average detention percentage 2011
Detention percentage 2010
Detention percentage 2011
D e t e n t i o n s p e r F l a g i n 2 0 1 1
exceeding average percentage
• Only flags with 20 and more port State control inspections in 2011 and with a detention percentage exceeding the average
percentage of 3,61% are recorded in this graph. In 2010 the average detentions percentage was 3,29%.
• The grey column represents the 2011 average detention percentage (3,61%).
44
Ship type
Nr of Inspections
Inspections with
deficiencies
% of inspections
with deficiencies
Nr of Individual
ships inspected
Inspections with
detentions
% of Detention
2011
% of Detention
2010
% of Detention
2009
+/- average
detention %
Bulk carrier 3204 1793 56 2751 104 3,25 2,77 4,60 -0,36
Chemical tanker 1701 813 48 1430 25 1,47 2,06 2,36 -2,14
Combination carrier 37 19 51 33 0 0,00 0,00 1,79 -3,61
Container 2066 985 48 1685 29 1,40 0,94 1,66 -2,21
Other 67 49 73 54 4 5,97 2,35 3,32 2,36
Gas carrier 448 184 41 384 5 1,12 1,12 2,22 -2,49
General cargo/multipurpose 6374 4199 66 4499 384 6,02 5,47 6,78 2,41
Heavy load 33 23 70 29 0 0,00 0,00 2,70 -3,61
High speed passenger craft 76 37 49 48 1 1,32 1,12 0,00 -2,29
NLS tanker 92 33 36 73 2 2,17 0,68 3,91 -1,44
Offshore supply 462 264 57 408 10 2,16 1,74 1,30 -1,45
Oil tanker 1324 488 37 1194 17 1,28 0,93 1,34 -2,33
Other special activities 1004 581 58 906 41 4,08 2,83 4,63 0,47
Passenger ship 339 173 51 273 15 4,42 1,60 1,58 0,81
Refrigerated cargo 413 275 67 353 17 4,12 3,08 5,04 0,51
Ro-Ro cargo 795 404 51 666 20 2,52 3,00 3,39 -1,09
Ro-Ro passenger ship 588 356 61 322 10 1,70 1,91 1,41 -1,91
Special purpose ship 119 64 54 104 2 1,68 3,23 1,11 -1,93
Tug 60 32 53 56 2 3,33 0,00 0,00 -0,28
i n s p e c t i o n s a n d d e t e n t i o n s
per ship type
Note: In 2011 shiptypes are published separate and not longer grouped in categories. The data of 2009 and
2010 has been regrouped accordingly and is therefore not comparable with the data as published in the Annual
Reports from 2010 and before.
45
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
% Det 2011
% Det 2010
% Det 2009
Average detention % 2011
Heavy load
Combination carrier
Gas carrier
Oil tanker
High speed passenger craft
Container
Chemical tanker
Special purpose ship
Ro-Ro passenger ship
Offshore supply
NLS tanker
Ro-Ro cargo
Bulk carrier
Tug
Other special activities
Refrigerated cargo
Passenger ship
Other
General cargo/multipurpose
Note: In 2011 shiptypes are published separate and not longer grouped in categories. The data of 2009 and 2010 has been
regrouped accordingly and is therefore not comparable with the data as published in the Annual Reports from 2010 and before.
46
2009 2010 2011
Def. Main Group Category of deficiencies Def Def % Def Def % Def Def %
Certificate & Documentation
Crew Certificates 1.835 2,53 1.684 2,59 1.101 2,15
Documents 4.698 6,49 4.349 6,69 3.491 6,83
Ship Certificates 5.031 6,95 4.117 6,33 3.046 5,96
Structural Conditions 3.104 4,29 2.952 4,54 2.808 5,49
Water/Weathertight conditions 3.213 4,44 2.851 4,38 2.597 5,08
Emergency Systems 2.635 3,64 2.191 3,37 1.952 3,82
Radio Communications 2.439 3,37 2.200 3,38 1.704 3,33
Cargo operations including equipment 330 0,46 317 0,49 332 0,65
Fire safety 8.361 11,55 7.687 11,82 6.591 12,89
Alarms 602 0,83 497 0,76 464 0,91
Working and Living Conditions
Living Conditions 3.418 4,72 2.932 4,51 2.313 4,52
Working Conditions 7.224 9,98 7.057 10,85 5.252 10,27
Safety of Navigation 9.618 13,28 8.654 13,30 6.528 12,76
Life saving appliances 6.915 9,55 5.636 8,66 4.782 9,35
Dangerous goods 197 0,27 224 0,34 125 0,24
Propulsion and auxiliary machinery 4.556 6,29 4.239 6,52 2.951 5,77
Pollution prevention
Anti Fouling 58 0,08 36 0,06 15 0,03
Marpol Annex I 1.720 2,38 1.586 2,44 1.318 2,58
Marpol Annex II 33 0,05 14 0,02 36 0,07
Marpol Annex III 13 0,02 8 0,01 18 0,04
Marpol Annex IV 266 0,37 298 0,46 253 0,49
Marpol Annex V 459 0,63 402 0,62 347 0,68
Marpol Annex VI 145 0,20 293 0,45 358 0,70
ISM 4.279 5,91 3.458 5,32 1.644 3,21
ISPS 768 1,06 868 1,33 518 1,01
Other 494 0,68 495 0,76 602 1,18
m a j o r c a t e g o r i e o f d e f i c i e n c i e s 2 0 0 9 - 2 0 1 1
Note: In 2011 a new coding system has taken effect. The data of 2009 and 2010 has been regrouped accordingly
and is therefore not comparable with the data as published in Annual Reports from 2010 and before.
Category of deficiencies Deficiencies % Deficiencies
Fire safety 6.591 12,89%
Safety of Navigation 6.528 12,76%
Working and Living Conditions - Working Conditions 5.252 10,27%
Life saving appliances 4.782 9,35%
Certificate & Documentation - Documents 3.491 6,83%
Deficiencies Deficiencies % Deficiencies
ISM 1.644 3,21%
Nautical publications 1.425 2,79%
Charts 1.398 2,73%
Oil record book 1.124 2,20%
Fire doors/openings in fire-resisting divisions 1.012 1,98%
To p 5 c a t e g o r i e s o f d e f i c i e n c i e s 2 0 1 1
To p 5 o f d e f i c i e n c i e s 2 0 1 1
47
Recognized
organization*
Total number of
inspections
Number of
individual ships
inspected
Total number of
detentions
Detention-% of
total number of
inspections
+/- Percentage
of Average
(0,35%)
Detention-% of
individual ships
+/- Percentage
of Average
(0,44%)
Alpha Register of Shipping 106 95 0 0,00 -0,35 0,00 -0,44
American Bureau of Shipping 1896 1659 1 0,05 -0,30 0,06 -0,38
ASIA Classification Society (Iran) 48 47 0 0,00 -0,35 0,00 -0,44
Bulgarski Koraben Registar 103 63 3 2,91 2,56 4,76 4,33
Bureau Securitas (Malta) 14 13 0 0,00 -0,35 0,00 -0,44
Bureau Veritas (France) 3841 3019 11 0,29 -0,07 0,36 -0,07
China Classification Society 256 231 0 0,00 -0,35 0,00 -0,44
China Corporation Register of Shipping 15 13 0 0,00 -0,35 0,00 -0,44
Croatian Register of Shipping 58 47 0 0,00 -0,35 0,00 -0,44
Cyprus Bureau of Shipping 16 14 0 0,00 -0,35 0,00 -0,44
Det Norske Veritas 3590 3070 3 0,08 -0,27 0,10 -0,34
Dromon Bureau of Shipping 60 49 2 3,33 2,98 4,08 3,65
Germanischer Lloyd 4308 3275 10 0,23 -0,12 0,31 -0,13
Global Marine Bureau (Korea, Rep. Of ) 38 33 1 2,63 2,28 3,03 2,59
Hellenic Register of Shipping 50 41 2 4,00 3,65 4,88 4,44
Honduras International Surveying and Inspection Bureau 4 4 0 0,00 -0,35 0,00 -0,44
Indian Register of Shipping 49 39 0 0,00 -0,35 0,00 -0,44
INCLAMAR (Cyprus) 25 19 1 4,00 3,65 5,26 4,83
Intermaritime Certification Services (Panama) 23 19 0 0,00 -0,35 0,00 -0,44
International Naval Surveys Bureau (Greece) 249 156 7 2,81 2,46 4,49 4,05
International Register of Shipping (USA) 198 133 6 3,03 2,68 4,51 4,08
Isthmus Bureau of Shipping (Panama) 62 50 1 1,61 1,26 2,00 1,56
Korea Classification Society (Korea, DPR) 3 3 0 0,00 -0,35 0,00 -0,44
Korean Register of Shipping (Korea, Rep. of ) 253 233 0 0,00 -0,35 0,00 -0,44
Lloyd's Register (UK) 4050 3333 1 0,02 -0,33 0,03 -0,41
Macosnar Corporation (Panama) 14 11 1 7,14 6,79 9,09 8,65
Maritime Bureau of Shipping 18 16 0 0,00 -0,35 0,00 -0,44
Maritime Lloyd (Georgia) 23 22 0 0,00 -0,35 0,00 -0,44
National Shipping Adjusters (Panama) 12 9 0 0,00 -0,35 0,00 -0,44
Nippon Kaiji Kyokai (Japan) 2198 1924 4 0,18 -0,17 0,21 -0,23
Overseas Marine Certification Service (Panama) 12 11 1 8,33 7,98 9,09 8,65
Panama Maritime Documentation Services 28 22 1 3,57 3,22 4,55 4,11
Panama Maritime Surveyor Bureau Inc. 5 4 0 0,00 -0,35 0,00 -0,44
Panama Register Corporation 36 31 0 0,00 -0,35 0,00 -0,44
Phoenix Register of Shipping (Greece) 38 21 1 2,63 2,28 4,76 4,33
Polski Rejestr Statkow (Polish Register of Shipping) 198 144 1 0,51 0,15 0,69 0,26
Register of Shipping (Albania) 44 19 4 9,09 8,74 21,05 20,62
Registro Italiano Navale 960 781 3 0,31 -0,04 0,38 -0,05
Rinave Portuguesa 8 5 1 12,50 12,15 20,00 19,56
Russian Maritime Register of Shipping 1585 1205 3 0,19 -0,16 0,25 -0,19
Russian River Register 12 12 0 0,00 -0,35 0,00 -0,44
Shipping Register of Ukraine 255 161 3 1,18 0,82 1,86 1,43
Turkish Lloyd 373 282 1 0,27 -0,08 0,35 -0,08
Universal Shipping Bureau (Panama) 65 49 3 4,62 4,26 6,12 5,69
Vietnam Register of Shipping 9 7 0 0,00 -0,35 0,00 -0,44
Detentions of ships with RO related detainable deficiencies per Recognized Organization
(Cases in which more than 10 inspections are involved )
* Where a country is shown after a Recognized Organization this indicates its location and not necessarily any
connection with the maritime administration of that country .
48
-2.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Average detention percentage 2011 (0,35%)
+/- Percentage of Average 2011 (0,35%)
+/- Percentage of Average 2010 (0,27%)
Polski Rejestr Statkow (Polish Register of Shipping)
Shipping Register of Ukraine
Isthmus Bureau of Shipping
Phoenix Register of Shipping
Global Marine Bureau Inc.
International Naval Surveys Bureau
Bulgarski Koraben Registar
International Register of Shipping
Dromon Bureau of Shipping
Panama Maritime Documentation Services
INCLAMAR
Hellenic Register of Shipping
Universal Shipping Bureau
Macosnar Corporation
Overseas Marine Certification Service
Register of Shipping
Rinave Portuguesa
% of detentions of ships with RO related detainable deficiencies per Recognized Organization
e xceeding the average detention percentage
* Only ROs with 10 and more port State control inspections in 2011 and with a detention percentage exceeding the aver -
age percentage of 0,35% are recorded in this graph. In 2010 the average detentions percentage was 0,27%.
* The grey column represents the 2011 average detention percentage (0,35%).
49
Recognized
organization*
Inspections
detentions
Low /
medium limit
Medium /
high limit
excess factor
Performance level
American Bureau of Shipping (USA) ABS 6035 1 139 102 -1,97
high
Det Norske Veritas DNV 12725 11 281 228 -1,89
China Classification Society CCS 878 0 25 10 -1,87
Lloyd's Register (UK) LR 14112 18 310 254 -1,85
Germanischer Lloyd GL 15868 27 347 288 -1,80
Registro Italiano Navale RINA 3160 4 77 50 -1,80
Bureau Veritas (France) BV 13515 28 298 243 -1,75
Nippon Kaiji Kyokai NKK 6878 15 157 118 -1,72
Turkish Lloyd TL 1437 2 38 20 -1,69
Korean Register of Shipping (Korea, Rep. of ) KRS 833 1 24 10 -1,58
Russian Maritime Register of Shipping RMRS 6055 26 140 103 -1,45
Polski Rejestr Statkow PRS 787 5 23 9 -0,63
Hellenic Register of Shipping (Greece) HRS 418 3 14 3 -0,05
Alfa Register of Shipping ARS 116 0 5 0 0,11
medium
International Naval Surveys Bureau
(Greece)
INSB 915 13 26 11 0,15
Croatian Register of Shipping CRS 225 2 8 1 0,18
Indian Register of Shipping IRS 137 1 6 0 0,23
Isthmus Bureau of Shipping (Greece) IBS 293 4 10 1 0,29
INCLAMAR (Cyprus) INC 117 2 5 0 0,44
Shipping Register of Ukraine SRU 771 15 22 9 0,47
Panama Register Corporation PRC 150 3 6 0 0,50
Panama Maritime Documentation Services PMDS 125 3 6 0 0,58
Dromon Bureau of Shipping DBS 60 2 3 0 0,68
Universal Shipping Bureau Inc. USB 197 6 8 0 0,78
Bulgarski Koraben Registar BKR 406 17 13 3 1,74 low
International Register of Shipping (USA) IRS 1051 42 29 13 2,07
Register of Shipping (Albania) RSA 175 13 7 0 3,55 very low
Phoenix Register of Shipping (Greece) PHRS 116 10 5 0 3,90
Recognized Organization performance table (2009 – 2011)
In this table only Recognized Organizations that had 60 or more inspections in a 3-year period are taken into account.
The formula used is identical to the one used for the White Grey and Black list. However , the values for P and Q are
adjusted to P=0.02 and Q=0.01
* Where a country is shown after a Recognized Organization this indicates its location and not necessarily any connec -
tion with the maritime administration of that country .
50
Total certificates
Certificates RO detdef %
Alpha Register of Shipping AR 122 0 0,00
American Bureau of Shipping ABS 13.211 1 0,01
ASIA Classification Society ASIA 50 0 0,00
Bulgarski Koraben Registar BKR 923 11 1,19
Bureau Securitas BS 14 0 0,00
Bureau Veritas BV 24.003 33 0,14
China Classification Society CCS 1.845 0 0,00
China Corporation Register of Shipping CCRS 59 0 0,00
Croatian Register of Shipping CRS 489 0 0,00
Cyprus Bureau of Shipping CBS 17 0 0,00
Det Norske Veritas DNV 23.294 4 0,02
Dromon Bureau of Shipping DBS 507 10 1,97
Germanischer Lloyd GL 33.355 23 0,07
Global Marine Bureau GMB 290 8 2,76
Hellenic Register of Shipping HRS 193 8 4,15
Indian Register of Shipping IRS 157 0 0,00
INCLAMAR INCLAMAR
163 1 0,61
Intermaritime Certification Services ICS 95 0 0,00
International Naval Surveys Bureau INSB 1.651 21 1,27
International Register of Shipping IS 1.256 19 1,51
Isthmus Bureau of Shipping IBS 258 4 1,55
Korean Register of Shipping KRS 2.119 0 0,00
Lloyd's Register LR 23.600 5 0,02
Macosnar Corporation MC 106 4 3,77
Maritime Bureau of Shipping MBS 164 0 0,00
Maritime Lloyd -Georgia MLG 186 0 0,00
National Shipping Adjuster NSA 52 0 0,00
Nippon Kaiji Kyokai NKK 17.812 8 0,04
Overseas Marine Certification Service OMCS 54 3 5,56
Panama Maritime Documentation Services PMDS 124 6 4,84
Panama Register Corporation PRC 96 0 0,00
Phoenix Register of Shipping PHRS 259 3 1,16
Polski Rejestr Statkow (Polish Register of Shipping) PRS 1.179 1 0,08
Register of Shipping (Albania) RSA 436 13 2,98
Registro Italiano Navale RINA 5.417 8 0,15
Russian Maritime Register of Shipping RMRS 12.597 5 0,04
Russian River Register RR 52 0 0,00
Shipping Register of Ukraine SRU 1.979 12 0,61
Turkish Lloyd TL 1.700 2 0,12
Universal Shipping Bureau USB 368 7 1,90
Total 174.185 308 0,18
Number of certificates covering RO responsible detainable deficiencies
51
Recognized
organization
Bulk Carriers
Chemical
Tankers
Gas Carriers
General Dry
Cargo
Other Types
Passenger
Ships Ferries
Refrigerated
Cargo
Ro - Ro / Container
Vehicle
Tankers /
Comb. Carriers
Total
0-5 6-11 12-17 ≤18 ≤18 6-11 0-5 6-11 12-17 ≤18 0-5 ≤18 12-17 ≤18 12-17 ≤18 6-11
American Bureau of Shipping ABS 1 1
Bulgarski Koraben Registar BKR 3 8 11
Bureau Veritas BV 2 2 9 4 1 3 12 33
Det Norske Veritas DNV 2 1 1 4
Dromon Bureau of Shipping DBS 10 10
Germanischer Lloyd GL 6 1 1 7 7 1 23
Global Marine Bureau GMB 8 8
Hellenic Register of Shipping HRS 2 6 8
INCLAMAR INC 1 1
International Naval Surveys Bureau INSB 3 15 3 21
International Register of Shipping IS 19 19
Isthmus Bureau of Shipping IBS 4 4
Lloyd's Register LR 5 5
Macosnar Corporation MC 4 4
Nippon Kaiji Kyokai NKK 3 2 2 1 8
Overseas Marine Certification Service OMCS 3 3
Panama Maritime Documentation Services PMDS 6 6
Phoenix Register of Shipping PHRS 3 3
Polski Rejestr Statkow (Polish Register of Shipping) PRS 1 1
Register of Shipping (Albania) RSA 12 1 13
Registro Italiano Navale RINA 4 3 1 8
Rinave Portuguesa RP 5 5
Russian Maritime Register of Shipping RMRS 5 5
Shipping Register of Ukraine SRU 12 12
Turkish Lloyd TL 2 2
Universal Shipping Bureau USB 1 6 7
Total 2 3 4 14 4 2 6 4 3 136 7 4 1 14 3 17 1 225
Number of certificates delivered for RO related detainable deficiencies per ship type and age
52
Flag / RO
ABS
BKR
BV
DBS
DNV
GL
GMB
HRS
IBS
INC
INSB
IS
LR
MC
NKK
OMCS
PHRS
PMDS
PRS
RINA
RMRS
RP
RSA
SRU
TL
USB
Total
%
Albania 13 13 5,78
Antigua and Barbuda 1 2 5 8 3,56
Bahamas 7 1 8 3,56
Belize 10 1 11 4,89
Cambodia 8 1 9 4,00
Comoros 7 6 13 5,78
Cyprus 5 5 2,22
Georgia 1 1 0,44
Greece 1 1 1 6 9 4,00
Italy 4 4 1,78
Kiribati 2 2 0,89
Libya 2 2 0,89
Malta 6 13 19 8,44
Marshall Islands 2 2 0,89
Moldova, Republic of 3 8 1 6 18 8,00
Panama 8 4 3 4 6 3 6 4 7 45 20,00
Portugal 5 5 2,22
Saint Kitts and Nevis 6 6 2,67
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 1 2 2 1 6 2,67
Sierra Leone 10 3 5 18 8,00
Singapore 5 5 2,22
Togo 1 2 3 1,33
Turkey 9 9 4,00
Ukraine 1 1 0,44
Vanuatu 3 3 1,33
Total 1 11 33 10 4 23 8 8 4 1 21 19 5 4 8 3 3 6 1 8 5 5 13 12 2 7 225 100,00
Number of certificates covering RO related detainable deficiencies per flag
53
Flag
Failed to call at
indicated repair
yard
Jumped detention
No valid ISM code
certificate
Multiple detentions
Total banned ships
1st ban 2nd ban 3rd ban
Antigua & Barbuda 1 1
Belize 1 1
Bolivia 1 1
Cambodia 1 2 3
Comoros 3 3
Cyprus 1 1
Dominica 1 1
Libya 1 1
Luxembourg 1 1
Moldova, Republic of 4 4
Panama 3 1 3 7
Russian Federation 1 1
Saint Kitts and Nevis 2 2
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 1 1 2
Sierra Leone 2 1 3
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 1 1 3
Togo 1 1 2
Turkey 1 1
Ukraine 1 1
Total 9 5 1 24 39
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Failed to call
at indicated
repair yard
Jumped
detention
No valid
ISM code
certificate
Multiple
detentions
1st ban
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Multiple detentions
Failed to call at indicated repair yard
Jumped detention
No valid ISM code certificate
Re fus a l o f a c c e s s ( b anning ) pe r f l a g 2009 – 201 1
R e f u s a l o f a c c e s s 2 0 0 4 - 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 9 - 2 0 1 1
54
CIC 2011 on Structural Safety and the International C onvention on Load Lines statistics
Number of individual ships
inspected during CIC
Number of
individual
IMO numbers
Number of
inspections
performed
with CIC
Number of
inspections
without a CIC questionnaire
Inspections 4,250 4,386 594
Detentions 150 150 22
Detentions with CIC-topic related deficiencies 42 42 8
Number of Inspections
during CIC campaign
Number of
ships
% of total
1 x inspected 4,123 97,0
2 x inspected 118 2,8
3 x inspected 9 0,2
Total 4,250 100.00
Ship type
Number of
individual
ships
Inspections
Detentions
Detentions
as % of
inspections
Detentions
CIC-topic
related
Detentions
CIC-topic
related as %
of inspections
Bulk carrier 781 795 25 3,1% 5 0,6%
Chemical tanker 421 433 4 0,9% 1 0,2%
Container 479 493 6 1,2% 2 0,4%
Gas carrier 88 89 3 3,4% 0 0,0%
General cargo/multipurpose 1,490 1,563 83 5,3% 24 1,5%
NLS tanker 25 26 1 3,8% 0 0,0%
Offshore supply 70 71 4 5,6% 2 2,8%
Oil tanker 290 296 5 1,7% 1 0,3%
Other special activities 170 171 4 2,3% 1 0,6%
Passenger ship 47 48 4 8,3% 2 4,2%
Refrigerated cargo 109 114 6 5,3% 2 1,8%
Ro-Ro cargo 163 166 2 1,2% 1 0,6%
Ro-Ro passenger ship 35 35 1 2,9% 0 0,0%
Tug 25 25 1 4,0% 0 0,0%
Other 57 59 1 1,7% 1 1,7%
Total 4,250 4,386 150 3,4% 42 1,0%
55
C I C I n s p e c t i o n s p e r S h i p t y p e
Number of individual ships
Inspections
Bulk carrier
Chemical tanker
Container
Gas carrier
General cargo/multipurpose
NLS tanker
Offshore supply
Oil tanker
Other special activities
Passenger ship
Refrigerated cargo
Ro-Ro cargo
Ro-Ro passenger ship
Tug
Other
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
0
56
10
100
1000
30 50 100 250 500 1000 2000
Number of Inspections
Number of Detentions
EF = 4 and above very high risk
EF = 3 to 4 high risk
EF = 2 to 3 medium to high risk
EF = 1 to 2 medium risk
EF = 4
EF = 3
EF = 2
EF = 1 Black
EF = 0 White
EF = -1
EF = -2
1
The normative listing of Flags provides an independent categorization that
has been prepared on the basis of Paris MoU port State inspection results
over a 3-year period, based on binomial calculus.
The performance of each Flag is calculated
using a standard formula for statistical
calculations in which certain values have been
fixed in accordance with agreed Paris MoU
policy. Two limits have been included in the
system, the ‘black to grey’ and the ‘grey to
white’ limit, each with its own specific formula
In the formula “N” is the number of
inspections, “p” is the allowable detention
limit (yardstick), set to 7% by the Paris MoU
Port State Control Committee, and “z” is
the significance requested (z=1.645 for a
statistically acceptable certainty level of
95%). The result “u“ is the allowed number of
detentions for either the black or white list.
The “u“ results can be found in the table. A
number of detentions above this ‘black to grey’
limit means significantly worse than average,
where a number of detentions below the ‘grey
to white’ limit means significantly better than
average. When the amount of detentions for a
particular Flag is positioned between the two,
the Flag will f ind itself on the grey list. The
formula is applicable for sample sizes of 30 or
more inspections over a 3-year period.
To sort results on the black or white list, simply
alter the target and repeat the calculation.
Flags which are still significantly above this
second target, are worse than the f lags which
are not. This process can be repeated to create
as many refinements as desired. (Of course
the maximum detention rate remains 100%!)
To make the f lags’ performance comparable,
the excess factor (EF) is introduced. Each
incremental or decremental step corresponds
with one whole EF-point of difference. Thus the
EF is an indication for the number of times the
E x p l a n a t o r y n o t e – W h i t e , G r e y a n d B l a c k l i s t
57
yardstick has to be altered and recalculated.
Once the excess factor is determined for all
flags, the f lags can be ordered by EF. The
excess factor can be found in the last column
of the White, Grey or Black list. The target
(yardstick) has been set on 7% and the size
of the increment and decrement on 3%. The
White/Grey/Black lists have been calculated in
accordance with the principles above.
The graphical representation of the system
below is showing the direct relations between
the number of inspected ships and the number
of detentions. Both axes have a logarithmic
character as the ‘black to grey’ or the ‘grey to
white’ limit.
Example f lag on Black list:
Ships of Flag A were subject to 108 inspections
of which 25 resulted in a detention . The “black
to grey limit” is 12 detentions. The excess
factor is 4,26
N= total inspections
P = 7%
Q =3%
Z = 1.645
How to determine the black to grey limit:
The excess factor is 4,26. This means that
‘p’ has to be adjusted in the formula. The
black to grey limit has an excess factor of 1,
so to determine the new value for ‘p’, ‘q’ has
to be multiplied with 3,26 and the outcome
has to be added to the normal value for ‘p’:
Example f lag on Grey list:
Ships of Flag B were subject to 141 inspections,
of which 10 resulted in a detention. The ‘ black
to grey limit” is 15 and the “ grey to white limit”
is 4. The excess factor is 0.51.
How to determine the black to grey limit:
How to determine the grey to white limit:
To determine the excess factor the following
formula is used:
= Detentions – grey to white limit / grey to
black limit – grey to white limit
Example f lag on White list:
Ships of Flag C were subject to 297 inspections
of which 11 resulted in detention. The “grey to
white limit” is 13 detentions. The excess factor
is –0,28.
How to determine the grey to white limit:
The excess factor is - 0 ,28 This means that
‘p’ has to be adjusted in the formula. The grey
to white limit has an excess factor of 0, so to
determine the new value for ’p’, ‘q’ has to be
multiplied with –0,28, and the outcome has to
be added to the normal value for ‘p’:
58
1.executive summary
Staff
Mr. Richard W.J. Schiferli
Secretary General
Telephone: +31 70 456 1509
E-mail: richard.schiferli@parismou.org
Mrs. Carien Droppers
Deputy Secretary General
Telephone: +31 70 456 1507
E-mail: carien.droppers@parismou.org
Mr. Ivo Snijders
Secretary
Telephone: +31 70 456 1849
E-mail: ivo.snijders@parismou.org
Mr. Peter Aarsen
Secretary
Telephone: +31 70 456 1510
E-mail: peter.aarsen@parismou.org
Mrs. Linda Korpershoek
Secretary
Telephone: +31 70 456 1627
E-mail: linda.korpershoek@parismou.org
Mr. Lourens van ‘t Wout
ICT Advisor
Telephone: +31 70 456 1375
E-mail: Lourens.vant.wout@parismou.org
Mrs. Melany Cadogan - Eskici
Office Manager
Telephone: +31 70 456 1436
E-mail: melany.cadogan@parismou.org
Mrs. Ingrid de Vree
Management Assistant
Telephone: +31 70 456 1508
E-mail: Ingrid.de.vree@parismou.org
Secretariat Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State C ontrol
Address Secretariat:
Nieuwe uitleg 1, P.O.Box 90653, 2509 LR The Hague, Telephone: +31 70 456 1508, Fax: +31 70 456 1599
www.parismou.org, secretariat@parismou.org
Layout and design
Rooduijn communicatie & design, Den Haag
Photographs
Cover photo: Italian Coast Guard
Paris MoU Authorities
Deniz Hammudog¯lu
Evert van der Spek
Secretariat
Website
The Paris MoU maintains a website which can be
found at www.parismou.org. The site contains
information on operation of the Paris MoU and a
database of inspection results.
59
P a r i s MoU f a c t s h e e t – o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e
Maritime
Authorities
Co-operating
Maritime
Authorities
European
Commission
Port State Control Committee
MoU Advisory Board (MAB)
Paris MoU Secretariat
THETIS
Information System
Technical Working
Groups
Owners, Flags and
classification societies
Ship inspection
services of
Paris MoU port States
Observers:
IMO, ILO,
other MoU’s
60
1en.exoxeetcucetiusvet siumv me a sryu m m a r y




9 comments:

  1. I'm extremely impressed with your writing skills as well as with the layout on your blog. Is this a paid theme or did you customize it yourself? Anyway keep up the nice

    quality writing, it’s rare to see a great blog like this one nowadays..
    Here is my blog : sosblogs.com

    ReplyDelete
  2. It’s really a cool and helpful piece of info. I am

    happy that you shared this helpful info with us.
    Please keep

    us up to date like this. Thank you for sharing.
    Also visit my weblog - italy vs spain preview euro 2012

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hey there! Quick question that's completely off

    topic. Do you know how to make your site mobile friendly? My blog looks weird when

    viewing from my iphone4. I'm trying to find a theme or plugin that


    might be able to resolve this issue. If you have any suggestions, please share.


    Thank you!
    Also see my web page > http://fosterparents.com/fpgeneral/privmsg.php?mode=post&u=42585&sid=4af67b7f82d75cedab87b05a70bbb8f2

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi there, I found your site via Google while looking for a related topic,

    your site came up, it looks good. I have bookmarked it in my
    google bookmarks.
    Visit my website ; http://www.murciaproperty.net/

    ReplyDelete
  5. I’d must check with you here. Which isn't one

    thing I often do! I take pleasure in reading a

    publish that will make folks think. Also, thanks for

    permitting me to comment!
    Review my blog post - http://www.golfspain.us/

    ReplyDelete
  6. My spouse and i were thrilled

    Louis managed to complete

    his research through the ideas he got from your own site.
    It is now and again perplexing just to choose
    to be offering guidance that many many people have been making money from.
    We really understand we have the website owner to give thanks to for this.
    Those explanations

    you made, the straightforward website menu,
    the friendships you will aid to foster - it's most sensational, and it's


    making our son and our family reckon that the concept is satisfying, and that's

    rather indispensable. Thank you for the whole lot!
    Here is my blog ... www.almoradi.us

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hello my friend! I wish to say that this article
    is awesome,

    nice written and include approximately all vital infos.
    I’d

    like to look extra posts like this .
    Feel free to visit my blog : http://fairytailepisode.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:MintaSpencer1977

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hi, i believe that i noticed you visited my web site so i came
    to return the choose?.I'm attempting to find issues to enhance my site!I guess its adequate to make use of a few of your ideas!!

    My page - orquesta atraccion

    ReplyDelete
  9. hello.....I am very thanks to amdin for this wonderful read!!! Iy enjoy every little bit of it and I have you bookmarked and now regular reader of MArine Surveys. To check out new stuff of your website a must read Site!!!! 
    Thanks for sharing this.

    ReplyDelete